Share this

Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas is under fire for an online video statement that Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go to places including Poland, Germany and the United States.

Thomas, 89, was quickly dropped by her speaker's agency. Former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the Hearst columnist should be let go. A Thomas commencement speech at a suburban Maryland high school was called off. Meanwhile Sarah Palin Tweeted that the left-leaning Thomas has long been coddled by a media stuffed with fellow travelers.

Do you agree with Palin, Fleischer and non-conservative critics, including Joe Klein of TIME and Lanny Davis? Should Thomas lose her coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room? And what lessons does this episode teach us about knowing when to retire gracefully?

BREAKING -- Helen Thomas will retire, effective immediately, due to her comments. The statement:

HELEN THOMAS ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT

WASHINGTON, June 7, 2010 – Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately.

Her decision came after her controversial comments about Israel and the Palestinians were captured on videotape and widely disseminated on the Internet.

Thomas later issued a statement: ``I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.’’

For years now Helen Thomas has been a challenging voice asking tough questions and refusing to accept evasions. While too many of her colleagues had reduced themselves to stenographers accepting White House dictation during the lead up to the Iraq war, Helen was the ornery one demanding the truth. She was carrying the torch of a free press when many of her colleagues were unable to acknowledge that there was one to carry. Respect is due this woman. We owe her service and courage more than eye rolls and scorn.
In the incident under discussion, Helen Thomas clearly misspoke. She has admitted as much, apologized and resigned from her post. It would be a shame if her career ended this way and an even bigger shame if the likes of Ari Fleischer and Sarah Palin were viewed as victors. Where was their indignation when Rush Limbaugh was making disgraceful and insulting comments about African-Americans, gays, Muslims and then was hosted and toasted at the White House?

Much of what Helen Thomas’s critics have been saying is all too true. Thomas’s recent remarks are beyond outrageous and part of a decades-long pattern of animosity towards Israel. She would have been long gone from the White House press room had her biases skewed towards the right rather than the left.

Yet I was I sad to hear that she is retiring and it’s not just because she is a colorful figure. There was something inspiring about seeing a woman in her late 80s who had lost none of her passion and was still sharp enough to ask questions that, while over the top, were accurately aimed to get under the administration’s skin. All the more so for me because I was simultaneously watching my once equally feisty mother decline from Alzheimer’s.

There is definitely a lesson to be learned here about retiring gracefully, but I’m glad Thomas held out until now.

Helen Thomas should, of course, be fired for stupidity, bigotry and grossly poor timing in calling for Israel’s Jews to “go home” to their countries of origin including not only the European nations she listed, but also places like Syria, Iran and Iraq where hundreds of thousands would presumably face detention, torture and death. She would, of course, already be out the door had the target of her bile been blacks, Hispanics or women.

But Helen’s fate concerns me not a wit. Her bias regarding Israel has long been known to anyone - including this commentator - who has spent five minutes in her company. Also no secret has the more skillfully administered appeals to bigotry of Pat Buchanan, who can’t seem to resist disparaging remarks about the excessive representation of Jews in appointive positions, especially the Supreme Court.

Having been born in 1940, my parents shared with me their view that anti-semitism was a clear and present danger and would be so as long as I lived. They saw Israel as the ultimate sanctuary from this affliction and often expressed the opinion that one day most of the world’s Jews would wind up there because even the most liberal democracies would ultimately succumb to the disease of anti-semitism.

Eventually I came to hold somewhat more sanguine views regarding a democracy’s ability to defeat not only anti-semitism, but also the most acute forms of racism epitomized by the regime of “separate but equal” - really separate and unequal - in the South. And with this growing appreciation of the possibilities of change and reform came an internal pledge to recognize quickly situations where good versus evil was in the balance and to stand without equivocation for the good.

I have little difficulty with respect to incidents like the so-called Turkish Flotilla. a.k.a. the al Qaeda luxury liner. The Israelis may have been a bit incautious in planning their interdiction and clumsy in staging it, but if they lack the sovereign right to interdict weapons headed for a breakaway regime of internationally certified terrorists sworn to Israel’s destruction and with thousands of rockets fired into Israel to establish its bona fides, then all the resolutions formerly establishing Israel as a nation state are meaningless.

There are, of course, a parallel set of issues relating to Palestinian rights and eventual statehood now being discussed in a series of “proximity talks,” brokered by the U.S. and attended by representatives of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. If these succeed. it will not be due to the buffoons of bigotry, whether cloaked in the garb of journalism or otherwise. Rather it will be those whose vision transcends the moment’s hatred and violence and who - like the founders of our democracy - are willing to devote their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the task ahead.

If Helen Thomas has suddenly, at age 89, discovered a bias against Israel (and, frankly, the suggestion that Israelis should go somewhere else -- perhaps "go back to where you belong?" -- smacks of something far worse than merely taking sides in a territorial dispute), then the right question is: should one know when to hang it up?

But if one assumes (and I do) that such prejudices do not suddenly arise in one's 89th year, the bigger question goes to the biases that may have colored Thomas's reporting over time. As a former working journalist myself, I know it is impossible to be opinion-free and it is the journalist's rather heavy burden to have to set aside one's own preconceptions in the task of presenting information to be considered and weighed by an audience that expects to be presented with fact untainted by a reporter's prejudice. The question that arises from the Thomas incident is the extent to which consumers of the news can expect the straight scoop or whether it is necessary to assume that "the facts" as reported are merely opinion and, worse, opinion derived from bias.

Helen Thomas, like Lou Dobbs and Don Imus before her, has learned that bigotry is inconsistent with American values. Telling Israelis to "get the hell out of Palestine" should cost her a special seat at the White House. There must be consequences for the bigoted comments that she belatedly (and I hope genuinely) regrets.

This is not about free speech. Surely Helen Thomas is free to speak her mind as surely as Sarah Palin's fellow travelers in the tea party movement who wave banners comparing the health care reform bill to the Holocaust and "death panels" to Nazi death camps. Americans have a right to speak - and to respond. While the marketplace of ideas will ultimately place a value on the currency of bigotry, I hope it's low enough that we don't reward either side with a TV anchor position, public office, or front row seat at the White House.

This is not about age. All who work fighting age discrimination know that to "blame it on age" as a rational or excuse is to condescend to seniors and to minimize the offensiveness of the remarks. Many of us who wrote against ageism when it came to John McCain object to ageism now when it comes to Helen Thomas. At 89, Helen Thomas isn't too old to work - obviously she speaks her mind quite clearly. And lord knows most others fired or suspended or demoted such as Dobbs and Imus are much younger. Age doesn't matter in bigotry.

Rather than ask "how to retire gracefully" we should ask "how to opine gracefully." First, don't scapegoat. Profile behaviors, not people. Second, be clear on your own moral standards and conduct. Those who condemn Helen Thomas today should mark their words carefully, because they could end up held to the same standard tomorrow (yes, I'm talking to you, POLITICO posters who refer to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab" while condemning her anti-Israeli comments). Third, when you cross a line from free speech to hate speech, do expect to apologize and don't expect a front row seat at the White House.

By the tone of the question there is an assumption that someone who is 89 years of age might not be in complete control of their faculties and therefore the opinions they hold or comments they make might be inappropriate and therefore they should retire.

While I disagree with Helen's position, I will defend her right to her point of view. What is the First Amendment about if not free speech, free ideas? I don't agree with a number of statements made by Ari Fleischer either as White House press secretary or as an independent voice, yet I will argue for his right to speak freely.

Why should she lose her front row seat? Because she said something that some disagree with. This is crazy.

Helen Thomas should certainly lose her coveted front row seat in the White House briefing room, and she should be ostracized for what she said. Her comments are deeply offensive and are unacceptable from anyone and most especially from someone active in public life.

Helen Thomas is entitled to her opinions but she is not entitled to be honored for them. Her status as "dean of the White House press corps" has long enabled her to get away with being downright rude and disrespectful to the presidents whom she did not cover so much as hector. Her most recent outrageous comments have finally pierced the bubble of protectiveness that her age and tenure provided her.

Whether it's Helen Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Moyers, Don Imus, or Sean Hannity, I fully support each of their free speech right to say stupid, ridiculous, and idiotic things -- even in public. Same goes for all the contributors on this Arena, myself included, who have, from time to time, blurted an outrageous comment or two. If Thomas Jefferson learned that a American journalist of any standing was to be barred from the White House because their political views were untidy, he'd be turning over in his grave. Not sure we want to get in the business of screening the political views of journalists who cover politics. Indeed, for 50 years Helen Thomas has asked presidents of both parties impressively difficult questions. What she said about Jews is ridiculous. She has apologized. Let's take a leaf from the boys of summer, and like Armando Galarraga, take her apology with a grain of salt, and move on.

Her statements were outrageous, childish and plain dumb. This is not a tough call, and it is a call that should have been made a long time ago. I remember during the first Bush administration when her behavior caused George H.W. to do a double take at her extraordinary rudeness and strangeness.

No, I don't think Helen Thomas should lose her front-row seat. I assume she has that privilege due to her seniority, and her remarks do not cancel her seniority. If she harbors the belief that a sovereign state should be dissolved, it is good that she said so in public, so that her readers and listeners are aware of her biases. Perhaps it would be useful for the public to know when reporters have strong feelings about topics they cover, rather than hide them.

I am appalled by her statement but she should be free to express her bitter antagonism towards Israel. From this point forward, we will know where she is coming from and judge her reporting accordingly. Perhaps because of her age, she inadvertently blurted out her hatred for Israel and her wish to see Jews expelled from their homeland and repatriated to nations where they or their ancestors once lived or never lived. But better to have that out in the open, then hidden away from sight and hearing.

Helen Thomas should definitely lose her front row seat in the White House press room. If she had said, “Send all Muslims back to the Middle East” then she would lose her seat. Washington University physicist Jonathan Katz was dismissed from the Energy Department commission investigating the Gulf oil spill for writing about global warming, diversity at universities, and links between homosexuality and AIDS. But today it is acceptable to be anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian.

Ms. Thomas has voiced such sentiments in the past, so early retirement is not a solution. In fact, with the widespread pension problems facing the United States today - underfunding of Social Security, multi-employer pension plans, and state and local pensions - Americans need to be working longer, not retiring earlier.

Age is no excuse for the outrageous statements made my Helen Thomas with regard to Israel. Her true feelings have come to the fore in the twilight of her career because she has no fear of losing her job and has that sense of entitlement. Ms. Thomas should be booted from the White House press beat with prejudice. There should be no fanfare or celebration for the “dean” of the White House press corps. Ordinarily, when someone of long standing service departs the White House press family, there is great cause for celebration; this is not the case with Helen Thomas. She should leave in disgrace for ending her career having given a black eye to journalism. The White House press corps has an obligation to govern their own. They should have gracefully exited Ms. Thomas long before she became a caricature. I can think of a few others that this lesson applies to.

About 20 years ago I was on a visit to Auschwitz and saw a group of high school kids on a tour; their leader was holding an Israeli flag. I went over to see who they were and found out they were a school group from Israel on a tour of Poland. How's it going, I asked.

"Not so good," one of them told me.

"What's the problem."

"Well," he said, "we went to lay a wreath at the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto, and some Polish kids started shouting at us."

"What were they saying?"

"Jews go home."

Everybody has to have a home somewhere -- in Robert Frost's definition of home as the place that when you have to go there, they have to take you in.

I always kind of liked that feisty broad; it's indescribably sad that things have turned out this way.

Last time I checked that whole freedom of speech thing was still in the Constitution. While its true dumping Helen from the front row would not violate her civil liberties, its probably not a good idea to have journalists jockeying for position based on the popularity of their opinions.

The media in general have actually done a better job responding to the "flotilla" crisis than many governments, including our own, the UN, and many "human rights" groups. The media has widely reported the links of violent activists in the flotilla to Hamas, a known terrorist group. The Washington Post responsibly came out this weekend in their editorial chastising Turkey for throwing gas on the fire.

On the other hand, what Helen was flat wrong. She is a columnist. She is entitled to her opinion, even really bad ones. She is also responsible for those opinions…and her employers and her readers should let them know how they feel.

Thomas may have unpopular personal views but there is far more at play here behind the criticism of her from right-wing figures. It is important to point out that while the majority of the American media establishment tragically and catastrophically went along with the fairytale being fed by the Bush Administration through Mr. Fleischer himself about the justification for the Iraq war, Helen Thomas was critical and constantly questioned the fiasco before it became a fiasco. For this, she was banished to the back of the room.

Thomas, who has covered every president since Eisenhower, is a journalism legend. The first question she asked President Obama was if he knew of any countries in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and President Obama kowtowed to the Israeli policy of nuclear ambiguity and dodged the question. Last month we learned that Israel not only has nuclear weapons but was a proliferator of nuclear technology as well.

If we had more journalists doing their job during the Bush era we would be in a different position today. Helen Thomas needs to be saluted for an enormous, productive and just body of work. You betcha’ Sarah Palin types want her gone. There is nothing they’d love more than to be able to run a country unchecked.

Frank Maddaloni (guest)
NJ:

Talk about stepping down before you become a caricature of yourself. Hey Sarah, exit stage far right.

Mike Gorman (guest)
OH:

Yousef Munayyer, are you serious? Only the right is upset with about the comments made by Helen Thomas? Lanny Davis is hardly a conservative. Helen Thomas is only beloved by the left because she only does her "job" when a Republican is president. Where are her tough questions of Obama concerning Rev. Wright, the cops acted stupidly and the Iraq war itself. The last time I checked we are still in two wars and Ms. Thomas does not seem to be as upset about that. This is the problem with today's media in nutshell. They do not do their jobs and they only ask the tough questions when a Republican is involved. She is an old liberal goat who is only loved by the left.

elaine brown (guest)
NC:

The McCain campaign should have gracefully exited Ms. Palin before she became a caricature.

Donald Johnson Blogger, www.businessword.com (guest)
CO:

Helen Thomas is the perfect and most visible representative of the hard left, anti-Semitic beliefs of the White House press corps, the Obama administration and Hearst. She should stay in her front row seat, ask her biased, uninformed questions and serve as a reminder that the mainstream media, Obama administration and Hearst have no credibility in the U.S. This is not a First Amendment issue. It's an employment issue and a peer review issue. Thomas' defenders, protective employers and newspaper editors who run her column are telling us more about their anti-Semitic values than we want to know.

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

Anti-Semitism has no place in our American society or anywhere else in the world. Israel is the Jewish state and America is and should remain its strongest and most steadfast friend. I guess it's nice to know that Sarah Palin realizes that there is an Israel even though she can't see it from her house. The relationship between Jews and Poles is long, sad and, dare I say, closer than many realize, especially older people from the generation of Mr. Mead. Many Jews and Poles are working hard to break down stereotypes and make that relationship better, notably my dear friend Mariusz Handzlik who died tragically in the Polish president's plane crash in Smolensk and who worked passionately and tirelessly all his life for Jewish-Polish reconciliation. Shame on Helen Thomas but she is an old woman and perhaps her foolish ravings should be dismissed with a measure of mercy.

Jeff Halder (guest)
CO:

Thomas was definitely having a bad day and her comments were outlandish. She probably has the idea by now her outburst is unacceptable. But her position in the press room should not be determined by opinions from Palin on Facebook or Fleischer. Are they running the White House? Palin as far as I know is a housewife in a small town in Alaska -- does her opinion weigh in on anything important? Let Thomas keep her seat and give her the chance to show her remorse through her actions and words.

Matt Caci (guest)
MA:

I for once agree with James Carafano. Now I don't agree with Helen Thomas's statement; however I do agree that it is her right to free speech. With the right to free speech you are allowed to say whatever you like; however you must face the consequences if what you say offends people.

Keith Platt (guest)
NJ:

Ms. Thomas' anti-Semitic outburst is the latest in a long series of racist and/or anti-Semitic rhetoric espoused by the left. It seems that, when a liberal commentator makes a racist, sexist or anti-Semitic statement, it is ok because that person believes in the perpetuation of the slavery that is the modern day welfare state, where liberals deem certain of "those" individuals as incapable of caring for themselves. Those that act in a manner to insure the subservience of "those" people in order to perpetuate the victimhood business (and that's what it is, a business) are given a pass on making outrageously offensive statements. As more evidence, I would point to Bill Maher's belief that a "real black president" would be some thug member of the Crips. Such double standards only serve to perpetuate the divisions between left and right. Those on the left say whatever they want and get a pass. Those on the right utter a word that no one really knows the meaning of (Macaca) and are banished from the public square forever. Until both sides operate from a level playing field, the divisions between left and right will remain and nothing that benefits the American people will get done.

David LeFevre (guest)
FL:

Freedom of speech, no way. Am I allowed to spew hatred where I work? No. Am I allowed to say anything I want as part of my job? No. What would happen if I said those things as part of my job? I would be fired on the spot. Just because Ms Thomas was a journalist and is still writing a column does not give her the right to say what she wants to say without consequences. Yes, she has the right to say whatever she wants but she must understand and accept that her vitriol may result in consequences. If she is allowed to retain her seat, it will undermine the value of the entire press corps and what little integrity that remains. I am sorry Helen Thomas. It is time for you to go.

Ed Allan (guest)
IL:

Let's pretend she said, "send all the blacks back to Africa." We wouldn't even be having this debate. Maybe "sending all the Muslims back to Saudi Arabia" would even get her fired. It's ok to hate Jews-- it's a favorite pastime of the left.

Oscar Delgado (guest)
FL:

I just would like to ask all the pundits what is the difference between saying "that Israelis should 'get the hell' out of Palestine and go to places including Poland, Germany and the United States" and many Americans saying "that millions of Mexicans should 'get the hell'out of USA and to go to their home in Mexico?" What and who makes Israelis or Cubans special in this country? If it is money, the Mexican people are in trouble.

david hanel (guest)
PA:

i believe Helen Thomas remarks are offensive and damaging to her credibility and her publications. I would advise her to retire, which I think she will. With that said the second story here is Lanny Davis and Sarah Palin's manufactured moral outrage. Lanny Davis circulated the Barack Obama is a Muslim e-mail, was behind the PUMA saga, and all in all will do anything to get on TV. Don't be surprised if he ends up in every episode of "The Real Housewives of D.C." The only person more hyporcritical is Sarah Palin who has no problem feigning offense at any remark made by a Democrat but is predictibly silent when it comes to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Joan Rivers's face is more authentic than these two people's musings.

David Keith (guest)
NJ:

From a political strategy point of view, I believe Helen Thomas may have delivered the president a present. It is up to him and his political team to "use" it correctly. He must pounce on this opportunity and throw Helen Thomas out of the front row (or the press room) quickly, and publicly. An issue such as this , which may seem small compared to the news out of the Gulf or Israel, can be made very large, very easily. The president publicly condemning this statement, and Helen Thomas, will bring the president into much better standing with the conservative Jewish voting bloc, of whose votes he received, and whose confidence he is losing daily. Cool, calm, and collected does not help here. Sarah Palin sees the political gains attainable due to this remark by Helen Thomas. It is necessary for the president, and his team, to see it too.

Neal Harves (guest)
KS:

If she would have said " send the illegals back to where they came from" she would have been replaced immediately, and probably tarred and feathered.

A. Martin (guest)
MI:

For once, I'd like to see an Arab loyalist stand up and speak out against inappropriate conduct and remarks against Jews and/or Israel. There are plenty of Jewish and Israeli pundits who take Israel (or pro-Israel officials) to bat for behavior and/or statements that are inexcusable or inappropriate. I would have much more faith in the integrity of individuals such as Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund, if he and others decried those activities or remarks that are blatantly inappropriate (as well as anti-Semitic) despite the fact that, in the process, they may seemingly support Israel or the Jewish people. Is that too much to ask? The instance with Helen Thomas is a no-brainer - it's low hanging fruit - and to defend her comments just shows how completely biased, myopic and completely nonobjective Arab commentators are when it comes to Mid-East affairs. Their credibility is utterly tarnished when they can't even take a stand against Helen Thomas whose remark is so reprehensible that if it had been directed toward any other group, there would have been a huge public outcry demanding that she exit the White House press corps.

Brad Froman (guest)
NY:

One of the job requirements of a journalist is to maintain an unbiased image. How can people trust the integrity of your reporting if they know you strongly favor one position?
She can no longer be trusted as a journalist. Helen Thomas became a pundit last week.

John Holly (guest)
MD:

Perhaps I am naive as a "civilian" but I have no understanding of why she should be fired. She was asked a question on her personal time. She is a columnist rather than a news reporter. Doesn't that mean she is paid for her opinion? I would be much less snide if I were some of the journalists now charged with deciding her fate. The fact is that she has been in world affairs far longer than most. While her statement may at base be deemed inappropriate she does raise a valid point regarding Palestinians. The state of Israel was land given to the Jewish. Unfortunately there were people living there. It's akin to someone buying your house although you never put it up for sale.

Bernard Sokolinski (guest)
TN:

There is a certain Jewish word to describe Helen Thomas: "schmuck."

Kevin Kelly (guest)
OR:

Helen Thomas was an adult before Israel was a state. What happened to Jews in Europe cannot be excused or forgotten, but the rest of history shouldn't be forgotten either.
She's obviously allowed to have this opinion, whether or not she is pilloried for it.
The right way forward has nothing to do with anyone being persecuted or forced to leave their homes, whether they be Israelis or Palestinians.

Robert Wilson (guest)
TN:

As a younger journalist I edited and wrote headllines on countless Helen Thomas stories written for UPI. As far as I can remember there was no inkling of bias or partisanship ever surfaced, so I believe she is, at her core, the type of journalist we all strived to be. That said, it is hard to excuse this. But I think we should also look at why is a worldwide wire service still keeping an 89-year-old woman on staff when they know she has developed this propensity for outrageous statement, which has manifested itself before this. I have long figured that for Hearst she is a trophy, an antique they can place on their mantle for the purpose of being able to say, "Look what we've got." Hearst should do the compassionate thing and invite her into retirement. As far as the inevitable First Amendment claims, she, without question, has the right to say anything she wants to. But having the right to say it does not mean she -- or any of us -- do not have to deal with the consequences of the words we speak. That's why we should select them carefully.

Jennifer Smith (guest)
AL:

Ken Blackwell, what does this have to do with President Obama? you can tell when someone is an unthinking partisan ideologue when they blame the president for something that he has no link with whatsoever. In fact when Helen made those comments, Obama was celebrating Jewish Heritage month inside the White House. Blackwell also snidely and offensively adds a parenthetical reference to somehow imply that the White House teams harbors responsibility for or shares in Helen's offensive remarks. Blackwell's insinuations are disgusting and show the worst form of unthinking partisanship and ought to be condemned. Worse though, POLITICO quotes him on its front page. His remarks reach offensive and despicable heights and he ought to retract them or apologize.

Daniella Garran (guest)
MA:

As a member of the media, Thomas is supposed to be somewhat objective. She should keep her personal opinions to herself. Comments like this are imbued with hate and serve no constructive purpose. Rather than denigrating the Jews, she could simply have expressed her views on policy matters or her hope for some sort of reconciliation. She should absolutely lose her seat to someone who is not biased and filled with hate. Just being an old bag of wind does not make it OK to make comments like that.

Brenda Pridgen (guest)
MD:

No. Helen Thomas should not lose her seat. We are a country of free speech and certainly there are others with greater reach who have stated much worse without repercussions. People are smart enough to sift through the reactionary vitriol of the day and discern whether something is appropriate, over the top or not. What we do not seem to be able to do as a nation is to separate U.S. policy and interests from Israeli policy and interests. They are equivalent as evidenced by many prior acts of the Israeli government. When this nation continues to align itself blindly to the acts and policies of Israel, we lose sight of our best interests. Helen Thomas has a right to express opposition to Israeli policies and practices and the desire to demonize her because that opinion deviates from Israeli apologists and lobbyists is just as unseemly.

Thomas McKendrick (guest)
GA:

What happened to free speech? It is free as long as everyone likes it. We hear lies and hate speech from politicians, gays, non gays, blacks, whites and so on and so on. Am I offended? Yes! Should they lose their jobs? No! Look at the crazy radio announcer who referred to the lady basketball team. Heck after sweating for an entire game all of us would probably look like that. I don't think any of them cried themselves to sleep over it. Remember the old saying: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you."

John Vittitow (guest)
TX:

Does it really matter what Helen Thomas thinks or says? I doubt very many in the press corps really thought of her as a heavy thinker during the last 25 years. She had her own agenda as do most players in the media and at least we all know what it is now. Maybe the others in the W.H. press corps will come clean now.

Viel von der Recht (guest)
TN:

Coming from the perspective of a tea party activist who very much supports Isreal, I have noticed in the comments here that the old adage must be true: "liberals are liberals first, above all else." It seems that where it is obvious to discern, many Jews are supporting Helen Thomas, just as they voted 78 percent for Barack Obama.

Joan Coltrane (guest)
MD:

Good Morning:
I have nothing to say about anything that Ms. Palin has to say...I do, however, want to ask a question.
How can anyone think that Helen Thomas was right or wrong? What Ms. Thomas thinks and comments about should be entirely up to her and it's her educated opinion. Ms. Thomas as been and will remain an accomplished columnist for many years to come. That chair belongs to Helen; she earned it. It seems that criticism is only acceptable when everyone agrees with it and when is that. What happened to "free speech"? Does that not apply to the columnists? I would say that Fox News certainly gets away with a lot of bigotry.
If Ms. Thomas loses her seat; sham on President Obama. He could have nailed that fool who called him a liar....but that didn't happen. The Tea Partyers are having a field day with him and making him a markery. I believe that respect should be shown to all not just a blessed few.
I also happen to agree with Ms. Thomas; sh'e a grand lady. Let Palin try to match her.
Many who might try matching her would end up with brain hemmorages.
The only think I regret about this is that Ms. Thomas apologized.
Joan Coltrane

Stephen Kogan (guest)
NJ:

The Hearst Corporation does not have to fire Helen Thomas. The president of the United States and the White House has the power to rescind Ms. Thomas’ press credentials. Ms. Thomas’s anti-Semitic remarks are not the problem. Ms. Thomas expressed the view of the left-wing dominated mainstream media of today. No amount of shock over Ms. Thomas’s remarks can hide the fact of the bias and hatred of the mainstream media toward Israel. The latest example of that anti-Semitism was the incident over last week’s flotilla from Turkey. Following in Ms. Thomas’s perspective the media attacked the Israeli military personnel as Jews who have no right to live in their own land and defend their civilian population from terrorist attacks. The most disturbing fact is the White House has remained silent in the face of all of this. If Ms. Thomas made the statement that African Americans should go back to Africa there would be no question about Ms. Thomas’s status as a member of the White House press corps. It is obvious that this White House agrees with Ms. Thomas’s position that Israel should cease to exist; Jews have no right to a homeland of their own.

Lee O (guest)
CA:

I like David Beispiel, but What Helen Thomas said was not a "political opinion" - it was religious cleansing. What she said is tantamount to saying "all blacks should return to Africa." Helen Thomas is the proof why forced retirement is a good thing. It is sad when good careers are tainted by foolish ramblings mumbled in one's dottage. (Byrd should take a hint as well.)

sammy lee (guest)
NV:

Helen Thomas has a right, as any American, to her opinions. Policy making is not in her job description.
There is no such thing as unbiased or independence in journalism. It's an artifice meant to make people believe that things are fair. Unfortunately, the devotion to such independent journalism by networks like CNN result in a situation where the proper weight isn't given to certain evidence.

Randy Becker (guest)
TX:

Why do politics come to play no matter what? I still see folks bashing both Obama and Bush when in reality this is one person who should be immediately removed from future press conferences. She lost her seat when she used her First Amendment right to stick her foot in her mouth. What amazes me is the Jerusalem Fund's comments.

Juan Vizcaya (guest)
NJ:

What hypocrisy!
If Helen were to say that all Palestinians ought to be moved to concentration camps and leave all territories to Israel, everyone would be making her a national treasure. The fact is that there is supposed to be freedom of speech and expression, not only freedom to say what coincides with “my” way of thinking. Last time I checked that works great in China, Iran, etc. yet we are the first to criticize them for lack of freedom of speech and lack of human rights. Leave her alone she is entitled to her opinion, if you don’t like it skip it and go to something that agrees with you. Let her be.

Dr Dan (guest)
IL:

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Political correctness is a fact of life in America and it has become unacceptable in the public sphere to make any minority feel in any way threatened or put upon. Just imagine Rush Limbaugh saying " Hispanics should get the hell out of Arizona, it is not their land. They should go back to Mexico and Equador", forgeting the fact that Hispanics have been in the southwest long before America was founded (just as Jews have been in Israel since long before Islam was established). And G-d forbid you should say Muslims should stay out of Ground Zero- you are branded a hateful bigot. No - advocating ethnic cleansic and sending an entire people back to face extermination (assuming Helen Thomas believes that Germany did infact exterminate Jews) should not be tolerated.

Daniel McDonald (guest)
TN:

The Imus analogy is appropriate. LIke Imus' bigotry, Ms. Thomas' views on Isreal have been well publicized for years. Why these comments have stirred such faux outrage from the intelligentsia now is what I find interesting. If this is the episode that finally ushers Thomas from the national stage, so be it.

elaine rana (guest)
CA:

While it is unfortunate that an accredited journalist who has had such a distinguished career has voiced her personal opinion on such a delicate subject as Israel and Israeli right to be settled in the Middle East. It is equally unfortunate that Tea Party sympathizers and Birthers express the far worst against President Obama. They claim its fair under the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech, no? Not one Republican politician or party member comes forth to say this is not freedom of speech as it was intended, this is blasphemy, racism, hateful and disparaging epithets whirled at the president of the United States and at times, his family. I don't recall the circumstances but if Helen Thomas was speaking privately and not in her role as a reporting White House journalist, why is she not entitled to her opinion? The last time I checked, Israel was not protected under the United States Constitution - they are our allies. But=t if we call for harsh punishment against Ms. Thomas should we not also do the same for those who insult the office of the president of the United States? Where is the Jewish coalition, the divisive Ms. Palin and all the other opinion-makers? Divided along party lines? We musn't return to McCarthyism.

Malcolm Jefferson (guest)
TN:

Ed Allen says, "Let's pretend she said, 'send all the blacks back to Africa.' We wouldn't even be having this debate."
Ed, my ancestors were captured in Africa and brought to this country to work the fields as slaves. Please don't make outrageous, ignorant analogies.

Mack Hall (guest)
TX:

As a public school teacher (oh, let it go; I was voting Republican before you were born) I would quite justly be sacked (oh, let it go; there is no collective bargaining for teachers in Texas) for expressing ethnic hatred. Freedom of speech and assembly means that the government cannot prosecute someone for expressing an opinion; it does not mean an employer, public or private, is required to keep a foul-mouthed wretch on the books. Let Helen Thomas keep her chair -- Hearst can have it shipped to her home (said home probably not in Poland or Germany).

A. Martin (guest)
MI:

To allow a professional (not to mention seasoned) journalist to hide behind First Amendment “freedom of speech” principles is an insult and a joke. There are certain comments that cross the line; one may be “allowed” to express them but that doesn’t mean that we have to – or should - tolerate them. As a member of the media, Helen Thomas’s personal views are not what we care about. Is she professional enough to be an unbiased, objective reporter in spite of her personal viewpoints and beliefs? That is the sign of the craft of journalism: burying one’s own opinions and keeping an open mind for the sake of unbiased and objective reporting. Obviously, Ms. Thomas does not abide by this dicta and should not therefore by entitled to participate in the White House press corps. Too many journalists blur the line between their opinion and reporting. "Freedom" of one's own personal opinion under the ruse of freedom of speech has no place in the field of professional journalism. If Helen Thomas is a opinion columnist or pundit, great. But get her out of White House press corps. That should be reserved for professional - and unbiased - journalists. And no, intolerance towards Mexicans and other groups isn't acceptable either. Period.

joe matterhorn (guest)
CA:

Helen Thomas was cozy with the White House and for years the grand dame of the liberal left, so this is no real surprise. With her statement she clearly meant what she said. Her lackluster apology was in no way to the people of Israel, she just said she crossed the line. Therefore it is a reflection of the truth of the liberal leaning left whose hate for Jews occupying what they consider to be others' land is apparent via Ms. Thomas's comment. Amazing in this day and age, but she is 89 and probably remembers the start of Israel in Gaza vividly, and possibly with disdain. As a result of her right to free speech statement the W.H. should have pulled her card to sit at the front of the press corps, but it didn't. The woman isn't apologizing to Israel, she is just sorry she got the bad press, but liberals do harbor some of the most venomous verbally outrageous people in the USA. Like the ones who went after Cindy McCain, or the ones who went after Bush's daughters and camped out in front of his ranch for weeks, Palin's baby. Helen Thomas shoud retire in embarrassment and simply fade away.

Elliot Schiff (guest)
CA:

This is not a right-wing or left-wing issue. This is an anti-Semitic issue, and should be treated as such. If any other politician had made a comment like that, it could, and probably would have cost them their job (see Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown"). Why is Helen Thomas any different? Because she's old? Because she has Lebanese heritage? Because she has asked the "tough questions" while in the White House? There is a certain standard that people in a position of power should be, and usually are, held to. Yes, freedom of expression is important, but once people start spewing bigoted remarks, we can either stop them or keep allowing them to spread their poison. When someone like Ms. Thomas is allowed to make remarks like those she made without any repercussion, we are essentially saying that what she said isn't really all that bad. As a White House-permitted reporter, leaving her in that influential position would speak volumes about the White House's tolerance for anti-Semitism.

Stuard M. Derrick (guest)
PA:

I need to respond to Diana Furchtgott-Roth's disingenuous and despicable comment about Jonathan Katz's dismissal from the Energy Department commission investigating the Gulf oil spill since clearly from her analogy she believes he was someone who was grievously wronged. Her purposely nebulous referral to his comments about the "links between homosexuality and AIDS" doesn't portray an accurate picture of Katz's beliefs. What Professor Katz actually wrote was an article entitled "In Defense of Homophobia" in which he compared gays to the Ku Klux Klan and stated: "There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs ... recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally ... Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves." This is outrageous to be purporting this idea in print and for Ms. Furchtgott-Roth to use it as an example of someone whose beliefs she implicitly is in sympathy with is beyond vile and downright immoral.

anna mcmahan (guest)
IL:

Poor Helen; one negative thing about the Jewish people and she is forced to go the way of Paul Findley. It really isn't fair.

Irene King (guest)
NV:

On a personal basis, I feel Helen's comments were repulsive and unnecessary. However repulsive, unnecessary, irritating, inflamatory, blah blah blah her statements may be, she still has the right to say or think anything she wants. The good thing is that those of us who have looked askance at her over the years no longer need to be curious about how she *really* feels - no matter how many apologies she may offer. Off the cuff = from the heart.

G. Adams (guest)
DC:

Helen Thomas should not get a "pass," as one pundit suggested, because of her longevity; but she (having apologized) should get a second chance because of all the good she has done over the years. It appears to me that she made the mistake of taking out her anger and frustration with a succession of hard-line Israeli governments, on the Israeli people. Her mother was Lebanese, and the Bush-backed Israeli massacre of Lebanese civilians in 2006 was inexcusable.

Thomas Lindaman (guest)
IA:

Helen Thomas should not lose her front row seat in the White House press room due to her recent comments about Israel. The fact that she's not a reporter anymore should disqualify her from being allowed in the room. To her comments, they were factually wrong, highly insensitive, and utterly without merit. However, they are her opinions, and the First Amendment still exists in this country (at least for now). Having her lose her job over them is not the solution. But I do find it interesting that the people lining up to defend Helen Thomas are some of the same ones who said Don Imus, Glenn Beck, and others on the right should lose their jobs over comments the left said were racist.

Scott Collins (guest)
TX:

Politicians stay in power by telling us what we want to hear. Helen Thomas is being punished for not playing that game. I'm sad to see the torches and pitchforks come out for Ms. Thomas because she dared to exercise her first amendment right to free speech. Because she dares to ask questions or our elected officials that provoke, probe, and even anger. when Nobel Peace prize winner Jimmy Carter was critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians a couple years ago, out came the torches and pitchforks. Why is America so afraid to ever be critical of Israel?

Madhav Nalapat (guest)
DC:

If she follows her own advice, Helen Thomas would need to return to Lebanon, as would more than 150 million other U.S. citizens to Poland, Germany, Ireland and other European countries. The arguments being made about Israel - that it has been founded on "land belonging to others" and "by displacing the original inhabitants" can as well be applied to the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and several countries in South America and Africa. Once those demanding that Israel dissolve itself at the least send a flotilla to Greenland demanding that the Innuits be given back a land that has been taken away from them by Danes, the suspicion that anti-Jewish feelings lurk behind the cacophony over Israel (and the silence about American Indians, Aboriginals and Innuit (to name a few of those displaced by migration from Europe) would be put to rest. Helen dear, since when were you a Sioux or a Cree?

David L (guest)
DC:

Helen Thomas should go. This is not a first amendment issue. Helen Thomas will still be free to spout her venom the day after she is canned. But she has been accorded a privileged position by the White House press corps she no longer is entitled to, and she is using that position of honor to advocate an outrageous viewpoint that taints the rest of the press corps and the White House itself. It is not only constitutional under the First Amendment but critical for a free people to condemn outrageous, bigoted speech. The press corps needs to summon the courage to condemn Helen Thomas or they will have implicitly condoned her comments.

Stephen Bell (guest)
CA:

Will the hypocrisy never end? The left goes into a psychotic rage when Arizona passes a law that identifies and deports illegal immigrants back to their native land. Yet they defend one of their icons who verbally espouses the dissolution of a sovereign nation. I could care less whether or not Helen Thomas keeps her front row seat in the in briefing room. She is damaged goods, and will be for the rest of her life. For that she should go down in history with a legacy as a bigoted, biased, and rude journalist whose credibility should have run out long ago. But she won't. The left will circle the wagons around her, because "she apologized, so let's move on". So I repeat, will the hypocrisy never end?

Charles Kastriot (guest)
MI:

Thomas' comments included the desire for Jews to return to Poland and Germany. One can rightfully ask where should the Sephardim go? What would be the fate of Jews who left, often expelled involuntarily and under threat of violence, from Yemen, Iran, Morocco and other Islamic nations? Also, what about the Jews living in the territory surrounding Jerusalem for centuries despite the Islamic conquest and subsequent oppression? While discussing the topic of people returning to their place of origin, Helen Thomas should follow her own demands. She has one of two options. First of them is for Helen Thomas to leave the United States to go back to Lebanon, the place of her parents' birth. Otherwise, she must return to her other homeland where she was better suited in her role of hostess of "Tales from the Crypt."

Donaize Smith (guest)
VA:

People think that anything can be said at any time about anybody or on any subject and then be summarily dismissed with a "oh, I'm so sorry, guess I made a mistake or I misspoke."
Do people ever think anymore before inserting their foot into their mouth? The adage that educated people lack common sense is certainly nothing to take lightly nowadays.

Milagros Cornelius (guest)
TX:

Whenever there has been mass hysteria in this world, seeded by pure and unrepentant evil, the Jewish nation have become (and are) prime targets. Chosen people are always resented by their peers. Think of high school. But: for this kind of raw sewage to spew forth from the cesspool brain of a senior journalist, there is something at work far beyond the bounds of simple human decency. Helen, please retire gracefully.

George Taylor (guest)
DC:

Thomas has been admired by many readers for years. At least those on the left have held her in high regards, and some embrace her unfortunate views. With the current administration's policies toward Israel, I was surprised to hear Gibbs refer to her comments as reprehensible. I anticipated this administration removing her seat from the front row, and up to the dais itself. She seemed to be echoing the views of this White House. Thomas is from a less enlightened period in the world's history. Her usefulness as a journalist and person waned long ago. She has pathetically clung onto the belief in her own relevancy in the modern world long after others recognized she and her ideals are out of place. Ther White House must end their relationship with Thomas or continue to risk their own shaky credibility in dealing with the Middle East. Many corporations will end employment when it discovers an employee uses social media to espouse biased views that run counter to the corporation's stated views. They cannot maintain such standards while turning a blind eye to such egregious comments made before the cameras. Giving this woman a pass will demostrate to the world that this White House and Hearst embrace her views.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

There is no excuse for what Helen Thomas said, despite the attempts of some Arena contributors to provide her with one. What she said was hateful, bigoted and ignorant. Had it been said by a conservative, I assure you, there would be no Arena debate about whether or not that person should be allowed to keep his/her job. We're supposed to cut her some slack because she's old; as if these views are new to her and the product of senility. I love when people make atrocious comments and then attempt to backpeddle. It's one thing to apologize if one's comments unintentionally hurt someone's feelings (assuming one didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings). It's another thing - as is so often the case - to pretend that you didn't really mean what you said. This excuse is most often used by purportedly intelligent people who should be more than capable of forming cogent sentences. Instead, we get the "misspoke" excuse, which I abhor. Nothing comes out of a person's mouth that doesn't exist in their heart. She said it and she meant it. That is her right. I heard it and I'm reacting. That is my right.

Michael Byrne (guest)
CA:

Doesn't everybody have an elderly family member who makes outlandish, poorly timed proclamations from time to time? Enough roughing up of an old lady who's clearly lost her ability to edit herself! Ganging up on a woman of 89 and forcing her into retirement is far more shameful than anything she said in a fit of pique. What about compassion, respect and decency for the elderly? She was/is understandably upset about recent Israeli tactics, and lost her temper. So? And all that said, guess what? Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine." I can't speak to Ms. Thomas' innermost thoughts on people of the Jewish faith, but I do know that you certainly can be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite. Israel can't hide behind its religion and its persecution complex any longer. Rational people all over the world, including a growing number of Israelis, are just plain sick of it. But the end to their unbridled bullying is approaching, and not soon enough for those in Gaza who continue to suffer as a result of Israel's choke hold. History will mark their despicable attack of two weeks ago as "the" turning point in what will eventually, inevitably, and mercifully lead to the end of Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Debra Kress (guest)
TX:

There is a reason Ken Blackwell does not hold current political office. His argument that people who have been invited into the White House for one reason are somehow mouthpieces for the president is absurd. Really Blackwell, your weak political shots only demonstrate your own trek into obscurity. No political campaigns to fix these days?

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
TX:

Helen Thomas sounded very jovial when she made the comment. As if something had been held on the inside for so long and finally she could get it out on how she truly felt about Israel. I'm surprised Helen didn't use the misspoke excuse they all do when they express themselves and it backfires on them. Helen didn't hesitate, didn't have to think about what she said. It came out with conviction and emotion. The words she used were waiting on her tongue to come out and they did. Everyone can relate to those words. Go back where you came from. Not just the Israelis.

CKA RedStateUSA (guest)
WV:

Amazing how many people defend Helen Thomas' right of free speech. Would that they would defend others' First Amendment rights, at all, or with any such vigor as they are with Thomas. But with Thomas, you'd think that intelligent and aware people would understand that when she spoke, she was representing Hearst, her employer. She knew that. Even whoever questioned her must've known that. That she, as an opinionist, was afforded the same White House press credentials held by other so-called reporters -- most who are really advocacy journalists, rather than reporters -- should have been questioned. Regardless, that Thomas and Paul McCartney said what they did was facilitated by the uncivil and arrogant atmosphere that Obama, fueled by his shills and shillettes in the state-controlled media, have created or expanded. And were such video evidence available, I'm sure Obama, his wife and essentially every one else hearing McCartney would be seen laughing. Their behavior was as despicable and tawdry as McCartney's, if not more so -- but especially Obama's.

James Willis (guest)
CA:

I find Diane Ravitch's logic mind boggling. Would she advocate for Adolf Hitler as Germany's leader based on his "seniority"? As President Obama told us, "Words matter."

Thomas Hall (guest)
MD:

Helen Thomas has been around a long time at least to JFK asking tough questions of both parties. Of course, anybody that challenges authority is considered liberal; as was Jesus, who also questioned authority. Thomas was moved from the front row to the back of the room, "persona non grata," as she called it, under Bush. Yes, she has admitted, she crossed the time. However, Israel's hard-line, right-wing stance against Palestinians, the collective suffering imposed on Gaza residents, and occupation of Palestine has not only failed to make Israel safer, but continues to fuel hatred throughout the Moslem world. Israel remains the one country in the world that could touch off a nuclear war with its nuclear capability (which they created in secret and have failed to acknowledge) and willingness to attack preemptively. Israel's current government is comparable to the Bush unilateralism and is doing comparable damage to Israel, their enemies, innocents, and America as protesters are burning American flags, since we provide military and financial support. Never have so few had such a negative impact on so many.

Pam Grundman (guest)
WI:

I am glad that Helen Thomas has retired. Let's not forget she is no longer a journalist - she is a columnist. Should she ever had that seat in the front row? I think not - but it shows the bias of the Washington media. She has the right to free speech - but there are consequences to her free speech and she is reaping the consequences. Lastly, I am completely befuddled as to how Jews in the U.S. can support Democrats to the extent that they do. If you read the Israeli newspapers, they are not so sold on this administration and its policies and yet you have posters here that slobber all over the Obama administration. Maybe the Jews in the U.S. have the ability to sleep peacefully at night, send their children to school on buses they know won't be blown up and to schools that are free from bomb shelters. Maybe they can get to work without having to keep their eyes open everyday, all day for someone waiting for the right time to blow them up - I just don't get it.

Rudy Haugeneder (guest)
WA:

As always, most journalists are cowards. They would rather condemn a member of their fraternity than take on an issue that might not be politically correct and debate it in public. Thankfully, these cowards do not ply their craft -- if that generous word applies -- after they reach pensionable age. They retire into the obscurity they deserve for failing to defend their own right to speak on important issues while they had the opportunity. When Helen Thomas dies, the world will read her obituary. Not so for the rest.

John Krogman (guest)
NM:

Now, now, most of us understand that Palestinians have legitimate, or at least discussable, grievances with the government of Israel. This point is blurred, to say the least, by Helen Thomas's inexcusable comments. But let's reframe the larger issue: Palestinian leaders and advocates are frequently marginalized in the US major, viz. corporate, media, among other commissions and omissions. Other than Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole, can you think of any other Americans who get recognized by US major media?

Linda Nabokov (guest)
CA:

I've always admired Thomas' boldness to stand up to power. Whether or not she is an anti-Semite is almost incidental to the stupidity she showed in her remarks. Back to Poland? To Germany? One would expect a remark like that from the type of person who yelled, "America love it or leave it," at anti-war demonstrators in the sixties.

Philip Nym (guest)
NY:

This Thomas thing got blown way out of proportion; she made one off the cuff comment on video, expressing an opinion that is really pretty common in academic circles, and got railroaded out the door. Definitely, "German" and "Poland" with their quick Holocaust connotations, was poorly worded and allowed for the simple (but I think overly simple) charge of anti-semitism; but the opinion she was sharing, in a one sentence riff, was that Israel got foisted on top of the Palestinians. And it's really not that controversial or unusual a stance; that's sort of what happened, if you'd like to peruse the historical record. Now, your particular stance on this, whether it was a good, bad or necessary thing is a matter of one's personal politics; I happen to think creating an Israel somewhere was a good and important thing. If you tossed it in East Germany, for example, our grandparents could have argued it on the basis of war indemnity, and then you'd have something pretty firm to hang your hat on. That's not what happened, so we do have this particular matrix of historical resentment to untangle. We're adults; let's stop censuring public figures every time they try to talk about Israel without coloring inside the usual lines.

Mike Salasek (guest)
CO:

What Helen Thomas said was wrong; however, this statement by Ken Blackwell, "President Obama's team has had a bad week. First Sir Paul, now Lady Helen!" is equally wrong. Neither Paul McCartney nor Helen Thomas is part of the Obama team and the fact that Blackwell tries to blame the Obama team for their statements shows the Republicans' desperation. I also find it offensive that so many politicians and others run to the aid of Israel even when they are clearly in the wrong. I am sick of hearing talk of peace while their actions clearly say something else. As much as I dislike Hamas, the fact is they were duly elected and that election was pushed by the last administration. All people who want to see a peaceful Middle East should demand that this administration make it clear to Israel that while they are our friend and ally, we will not sit back and watch them break international laws, anger the whole Muslim community in the process, and set back the possibility of peace in the region. It is time for both Israel and the Palestinians to put up or shut up about peace because this has gone on long enough.

August Murphy-King (guest)
VT:

Just one quick question for all involved - if Thomas has to resign from her position for saying that Israel should get out of Palestine, then I'm assuming we will all soon be calling for Huckabee to resign his position for saying that Palestinians should get out of Israel. This incident just shines further light on the systemic bias across both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to this issue.

greg burton (guest)
NY:

I hate Helen Thomas. She is a left-wing hack, who has increasingly become a charicature of herself the longer she has been allowed to work for Hearst. As has become obvious over the past few years as talk radio and Fox News have become the most popular of their respective venues, there is a fine line between editorializing to represent your opinion and hard actual journalism. Fox is clear about which parts of its programming represent their excellent journalism and which parts represent the hosts' and commentators' points of view: "Journalists" like Helen Thomas (and PBS) have consistently crossed that line without thought or mention to their readers of their doing so. This is far worse, because unsuspecting readers and listeners either overtly or subliminally receive news skewed by these journalists' points of view but take it as news, not opinion. Yes, this is rampant in mainstream media, and when someone lets thier guard down, like Ms. Thomas did, other members of the media are torn three ways: First, was what she said truly appalling to her peers? Second, do they have the right to throw stones from their glass "houses"? And third, should they stick behind her as a "First Amendment Rights" issue?

Gaius Baltar (guest)
NY:

Before condemning Thomas, read The Invention of the Jewish People by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, a best seller in Israel. Professor Sand explains that the Palestinians are the descendants of the original Israelis, that the Exodus did not occur and that the Romans did not expel the Jews from ancient Israel. Prof. Sand further explains that most Jews today are descended from non-Jews who converted to Judaism in Roman and medieval times. These people, regardless of their religion, have no moral or ethical right to return to Israel and ethnically cleanse its original inhabitants. The entire justification for Israel, for Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, is a fraud. Given how Thomas has seen Israel treat the Palestinians and try to bomb Lebanon to stone ages, including the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camp massacres, the shelling of refugee camps, and dropping 1 million cluster bombs on southern Lebanon, all while hearing the most shameless excuses from the US government and media that blame the victims, she had every right to blurt out the truth.

A.M. Ros (guest)
CA:

Hey Obama. Want to send a clear message that anti-semitism will not be tolerated? Reassign the Reichminister Helen Thomas seat, to a reporter from The Jerusalem Post. I won't be holding my breath...

Steven Best (guest)
OH:

There is not a lot of difference between the comments made by Helen Thomas and the post by Diane Ravitch today.

Anne Baldwin (guest)
AZ:

Since when is it not okay for a journalist to have an opinion? Helen T was frank. Somehow it is okay for Fox/Bushies/Repubs to have opinions and even present it as actual "news," but not okay if it is Helen T or someone in an upper age bracket to opine? Get real. Helen T is a gutsy woman who began her career in a man's world and made it to front row seating. I respect you. You go girl.

Lee O (guest)
CA:

Helen Thomas is just the latest "useful idiot" being thrown under the bus. She turned out to be nothing more than a slow-moving target when the President needed an opportunity to show how even-handed he is with Israel after all. "Thanks for the years of service, but we are in peril of losing the Jewish vote...".

Norman Lear (guest)
CA:

I am a Jew. I love what we hope as a culture we are really about. I love Jewishness. But then, the way I think of Jewishness, I love Italian-ness, Irish-ness, and all the other "nesses," too. What we all intend, at least what our cultures and religions say we all intend, is good. Among them is forgiveness. As she leaves the national stage after her 50-year run, it's time to forgive that now ancient hatched-faced whippersnapper, Helen Thomas, whose just being there delighted us for so many years. I will never forgive her offensive last words per se, but rest well, Ms. Thomas, on the billions of other words and on the 90 years it took to say them.

Jazziette Devereaux (guest)
AZ:

It is sad that Helen Thomas will end her career in journalism on such a sour note. However, it is a victory for all human beings, regardless of culture, race or religious preference, that the outrage over her clearly bigoted comments has sent a clear warning that this type of biased commentary will no longer be tolerated. How unfortunate that the statement she made about her comments after the fact: "They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.’’ If only Helen Thomas, if she really did believe that, could have had the wisdom and foresight to use her talent and influence in a way that could have brought about the "mutual respect and tolerance" that this world needs so very much. Perhaps this will open the eyes of many and they will no longer remain silent when our brothers and sisters of different cultures and beliefs are so unfairly and cruelly discriminated against by certain members of the press who would use their influence to do anything but bring about respect and tolerance. Let's hope this is the end of an era in which the most vile prejudice has been permitted in journalism.

Chris C (guest)
NY:

I don't understand why a commentator was even allowed to be a member of the WH press corps. The public assumes that the corps consists of unbiased journalists (or as close as we can get to that these days). As a commentator she can say what she wants. As a working journalist, you have to keep your biases to yourself and out of your work or everything falls apart.

Russell Ducoff (guest)
TX:

I am a Jew, a lawyer, a Democrat and a Texan. I do not know what that says about me, but I am offended greatly by Ms. Thomas' comments on every level. I am respectful of her legal right to speak her mind, but her comments went way beyond the pale. Whatever her political leanings are not important to me--the problems in the Middle East have festered for thousands of years--neither Ms.Thomas nor I will agree on how to solve them. For now, let Ms. Thomas freely express her feelings without the yoke of professional responsibility or employment to slow her down. I doubt she will have much of audience and that should speak volumes to her, although due to her hate and senility, she will probably never notice.

Rodger Lemonde (guest)
FL:

So it's one strike and you're out for a venerable reporter who has served her nation well and Beck, Limbaugh and company spout all sorts of seditious trash daily with no problem. By the way, Palestinians are a Semitic people too. So the loudest most dangerous anti-Semites turn out to be ...

Toni Mack (guest)
TX:

Some Arena players - Victor Kamber, Diane Ravitch, James Carafano - appear not to have a good grasp of the difference between free speech and paid speech. What Helen Thomas says to a friend over dinner is free speech. What she writes on a placard and at an antiwar demonstration, or at a tea party, is free speech. Helen Thomas's Hearst column was paid speech, and she was interviewed as a White House correspondent for Hearst when she made the racist remarks. Hearst's readers likely found them objectionable. Hearst had every right to fire her. Don Imus learned the same lesson. Since Helen's remarks were indefensible, someone in or near the White House - or the White House Correspondents' Asso. - probably suggested that voluntary retirement is a more dignified way to end a long career than banishment.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.